Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 5, 2014 3:00am-3:31am PST

3:00 am
between, some portion of their time at metered spaces or a portion not and i am not sure that we will have the leeway on that. >> because we have to see that as a prime parking location that is taken and giving up for $3. >> okay. >> other than that, i support, you know, the we have the leeway that we can breathe thanks to google but the question is how can we fund this in the future that we don't come to a researching stop in two years and saying that we can't do it?
3:01 am
>> that i think it will just become part of the budget, and reduced revenues. >> okay. >> i want to thank everybody for being here for those of you who are leaving before we finish up. and i want to thank the staff for pushing the meeting back to accommodate us so that these folks could be here today. and but i think that we... [ speaking in a foreign language ] >> i want to thank the mothers and the testimonies are powerful and i am grateful that they answered the call to come, and i think that it is clear that with the mayor saying that
3:02 am
he appreciated the success of the program and it is something that we should be making permanent and we should find ways to do that. my next phone will be google and i want to express my gratitude for them for putting us in a position where we don't have to discuss as to whether or not we should do this at all, because it is here, we will be doing it for the next two years and had we be absent that donation, we will be having a conversation about whether or not not to make it permanent or to have it at all. it is money that we have to find and that being said, i really want to emphasize the challenge that we are up against, with the respect to
3:03 am
funding something if we make it permanent and our infrastructure is a mess right now, we experience the delays seemingly on the regular, and i straightened my alerts out and i am now getting the text alerts. and the way that i should be and i appreciate the staff, for following through and helping me through that. because now i am getting alerts and it seems that the infrastructure is falling apart and i thank you for the definition and why are we delayed and it is communications, trains on communication, and communicating with one another, and doors are failing, and things like that, and that translates into money that we spend on over time, or other things that then we can't afford things like maintenance or operators and it turns into over time, that takes away money from things like free muni for youth. and so that being said, i think that it is absolutely critical
3:04 am
that we win in november and we figure out how we can save the money to be able to pay for things in the long term like the things that most of us here so far agree that i do support which is expanding the program to include people with disabilities and our seniors. this go around around, i want to include the 18-year-olds, and that is absolutely something that i think that we should have done earlier and i am glad that we have the opportunity to visit it, or revisit it, with that google donation that we don't have to budget, paying for the premuni loan for for the next two years which is fantastic. >> i am also in support of indexing the fares and this is a hard thing to do, nobody likes to increase anything, but the sad reality is that the cost of living goes up every
3:05 am
year, whether it is the fuel or it is benefits that we offer and the good job that we provide to our operate and hers employees, and everything goes up and because we stop and suddenly the price is so huge that the jump itself going from 50 percent increases or 75 percent increases or put off putting that, it creates a whole lot of political turmoil that i think that any of us would want to deal with or our predecessors or the people that... our success ors i should say. so i support that finally i want to say that i also like the idea of incentive the cliper cards, if you are not on it yet, you need to get in with the program, it is like you are
3:06 am
in a transit only lane with the cost that you are causing the system. the delay of dwelling and the time that it takes to get on board and those of us that are residents and don't have cars and are relying on transportation, really need a cliper card and if the incentive is to create a little bit of a higher fee for the cash fares and to get rid of the cash fares and to get on the card which is part of a win, win. >> and i think that is probably enough of my comments. >> thanks. >> director, how about you? >> thank you. >> chairman nolan and i will go in the order that director riskin presented these things to us which may not be as exciting as it could be. but, i question, i noised a budget item for $2 million in litigation cost and i believe as we as a board eliminated insurance for this agency, there was discussion that in addition to the line item there would also be a set, reserve
3:07 am
that would essentially be a self-insurance pool, is that in the budget as well. >> absolutely tha, is the budget and what you see is a reduction, by $2 million in the anticipated. and we are funding that in lieu of the policy and presuming to do that in this budget and that is in addition to satisfying our reserve policy in generally. >> that is separate from the operating reserve of 10 percent which is funded at ten percent and it is proposed to stay at 10 percent. >> great, thank you. >> i will say, it is not the most glamorous issue, but i am very gratified by my colleague's response to the indexing of fares and as tom knows that as i pushed it through and the other s pushed it through and i was a lead advocate for something that is not glamorous at all. >> thank you.
3:08 am
>> and that makes me less glamorous. >> okay. >> and it was because as director says that we need to keep up with the cost of living and inflation adjustments but it was also for another reason. that if we debate each fare and each fee, individually, it creates a moras and more than just a moras for us procedurally it create as a situation where some of us in our community are being arbitrary and that is a dangerous perception and i am glad that there is a positive respond to indexing and i am glad that it is working and i remain a strong proponent tf and i don't think that we should deviate on any of the fares, and particularly the express routes, and unless there is a policy reason to do it, not a budgetary reason, if you were to come back and say that the maintenance and the upkeep and the service associated with the fline rides is so much greater, that we
3:09 am
would charge the single time losers and not the cliper card users not the people who are using it for every day transit that is a policy reason to support that and i am very much in favor of sticking with the indexing and very much opposed to any change unless there is an overwhelming policy reason because once we go down that road there will be invitations to do it on all other sorts of fares. >> on the free muni for low income youth, i will just join the praise to the staff, and the agency and frankly the city as a whole and the people who pushed for it on the success that it has been and there are so many positive attribute to this and one enrollment level. >> shows, that we accomplished what we set out with supervisor campos to accomplish which was a program that the people would not feel a barrier to entry and one of the concerns about having it be a low income program and the people might
3:10 am
feel a barrier to entry and that is not the case and i think that the staff deserves to heat it for our direction, and to make it so that there is no barriers to entry and this is building us, you know, a life long transit riders and we are opening up the system to people who will be life long transit riders and that is a benefit by the passage of time that is much greater with the youth riders than any of the other groups that we are talking about. finally, in a thing that is personal to me is fat they are of three in the city and i think that this helps us as you and i have discussed chairman, address this perception that san francisco is not family friendly, we want to be and i think that this is a good way to address this. >> this may surprise some people, i think that we should look at making this program, the low income youth, free muni permanent, i think that we need to figure out a way to do this, and i think that we need to be very mindful of director's
3:11 am
mineful comments that we have to look for funding for this and i think that i am ready in my mind to shift the pparadigm that i will do it if you help us find the funding to this is something that we should want to do and we will help you find the funding for it. >> i am in favor for expanding it to 18-year-olds in high school and whether it is all 18-year-olds or low income or just thosing in high school is whether we can administer it easily that way. that makes sense to me. >> on the broader discussion of using this very successful program, to talk about means testing, or some sort of equality, opportunity, on income for other groups, the proposal has come forward to say that maybe we look at a similar issue for low income. seniors, and low income members of our disability community. i am not opposed to that. but i wonder if we are looking
3:12 am
through it through the wrong lens. >> as i have said, there are some very, unique benefits to encouraging younger riders who are going to school and going to be the citizens and bettering themselves and will be life long transit riders and there are unique benefits that don't exist with the others and if it is really about income equality, my question is this, could we look at it through a different lens and as you suggested director, remove some of the discount for seniors, and disabled people, that exist today, and obviously benefit those who are not low income. by bumping the senior and disabled fare up to 50 percent of the base fair and then use that to relax the requirements for the life pass. low income across the board. if this is about equality and i think that it should be, on income bases, i don't know why
3:13 am
people may recent that and understandable so and talk about this as a more broad based and something that we have in the existing and successful life line program and i think that the problem with it right now is the target or the threshold is very difficult one to meet in a very expensive city like san francisco. i think that i am stunned that we are less than 50 percent, and i think that it is great and i will not mind an incentive and i suspect something that is more controversial and there may be a reason to go above the indexing on the flat cash fare and that reason may be to promote the cliper card usage
3:14 am
which does a great deal to speed the process. and so we could have a situation where the space fair stays at $2. for cliper card usage and goes to 2.25 for cash usage. we might want to look at keeping it at 2 for card and $2.50. and then on the final point, which, i will just put it this way, it was my understanding in the budget process that we will have some options that may relate to make the market street car free and so i know that we are not going to hear that today but i will remind that i think that we were told that we will hear that and that might go to a lot of the larger global comments that we heard from the fellow citizens today. thank you. >> thank you. >> director? >> you have the last word. >> awesome. >> okay. >> well, everyone said, a lot of good things, so that was really helpful for me and
3:15 am
thanks to all especially the youth, and the community that spoke today, and i thought that the public comment was high caliber and helpful to our discussion today. so, i agree with the indexing, i just think that is a very easy and kind of a fair and kind of it is a fair way to go and the people can expect things and it it is just across the board, and for all of the reasons already discussed and i am in support that have and also not breaking away from it as much as possible unless there is a strong policy reason. and i had a question, as to that and it kind of went to several comments, but the various directors made and one was, specific increasing the youth, senior fare to 50 percent, xh i think, and my understanding is that it is more kind of market, and the more common in other agencies at least, and we would be doing that for the people who could afford to do that and it would not be. >> so what i was putting on the table that would be beyond indexing and if we were to for
3:16 am
the free and moderate income and youth and whether it is permanent or not. but to say for the youth, given that that they will be paying zero. and in conjunction with that, it would be raising the discounted youth fare for all of the high income youth to up to 50 percent of full fare currently it is a third and the proposal to do that with seniors i was suggesting would be doing in conjunction with making it free for moderate income seniors. >> and people with disabilities. >> but that is that item, inclusive of the people with disabilities? like a disability fare? >> that would be the on the table. >> currently, the discounted fare is for the youth and seniors and people with
3:17 am
disabilities and they will pay a third of the full fare on a monthly pass and the proposal, the way to do this, would be is if the board wanted to make muni free for low to moderate income and then you will increase the discounted fare to be half of full fare instead of a third. >> i just wanted to see, and so i would support doing that, and also, support i mean that i would like to see the free muni for what is it, definitely support extending it to 18 for the youth program and also i would really support making it permanent and just, working really hard to get funding and because i think when we make a commitment to make something permanent we work hard to get the funding for it because it goes into our operating budget and that is what we are going to do and we have a lot of hard work to do and i know that i appreciate the comments of the vice chair in terms of what happens in november. and i want to do whatever we
3:18 am
can to get that permanent. and i would support doing the increase of the 50 percent, reduced fare and in connection with also, ex-stending it for people with disabilities and i do thing it was unique to the people with disabilities and seniors that are not necessarily shared with the youth committee and are separate and also unique to the other communities in particular and just the transit dependent nature of the communities and in particular, you have people with disabilities who are going to go on paratransit if they can't access. >> and so there are higher ways that we can address it but i think if we make the transportation as accessible as possible, as many people as possible, in a community that is very transit the seniors and people with disabilities and i would like to see it paired up in terms of balancing it as much as possible.
3:19 am
>> i think that everyone else said everything else that i wanted to hit on. >> i know that we are excited to... could i just ask a question that kristine and i were actually discussing during the meeting? >> that is what i was going to ask too. >> and have we done an analysis of how much money we get by going to 50 percent and how much that will buy us either in terms of her proposal of low income proposal for disabled or seniors or my proposal of expanding life line, i realize that we may have not and kristine and i. and we have in the staff report, so to yeah, be about two and a half million dollars, increased from a third to up to half senior fares, and the senior and people with disabilities and it is about 8 million dollars, and if we
3:20 am
assume half of them and that is about four million dollars and, we don't really have the good data on that and that will northbound the four to six range and so it would not fully pay for it, it will partially pay for it, in terms of the life line, it is about 1.3 million estimated to reduce, the life line fare by five dollars so that we could do almost double and reduce it by ten and it would get it down offset at 50 percent discount, to get it to 33 or 67 percent discount, and it is somewhere in the ballpark. >> so that is easier math just that there is a third proposal that i was putting out there is not so much that we reduce the life line rate, but that with the extra money we would relax the requirements. which would bring in more people. >> right now it is 200 percent.
3:21 am
>> right, how high could we go and have this... >> that math we have not done and that is what i was getting at. >> well, i was thinking i wanted to ask a related question because it was a question that i had when i was looking at this and basisly, when we were talking about, low and moderate income, for all of these programs, my understanding is that we are talking about the same threshold and i was just wondering if you could define the threshold. >> yeah, so i believe, and jane, may recall, this better than i, because i don't have it in front of me, i think that we ended up with 100 percent of average median income but originally we were hoping to go to 120, because of the funding concerns that we had last time around we went to 100. >> just to be clear this is the threshold that we are using for low income use. >> that is correct. >> that is 100 percent of the median income. >> and as i think that you know, unlike the life line
3:22 am
program, it is a self-certifying process and so you fill out a form and you certify what your household income is and based on that certification that you sign we make a determination if you are eligible or not. >> as we discussed there were policy reasons behind that to make it low cost and more barrier free, correct. >> and the life line and we have a more regulated process. >> correct. >> yes. >> >> and i am glad that you mentioned it. and i have a problem, with that one. >> in the multiple e-mail and that for a lot of people, it is the transit running on that stretch of market. i would be comfortable not
3:23 am
increasing that one. i don't know if it is reload loading, but i do want as many as people on there as possible and i believe that the rate is shockingly low but to compare us to the agency where 90 percent are on, good afternoon.
3:24 am
3:25 am
the board of supervisors san francisco land use & economic development committee i'm supervisor scott weiner the chairman the committee to my right is supervisor jane kim and
3:26 am
i want to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting today's hearing especially jennifer lowe moichldz. >> yes. please turn off all electronic devices completed speaker cards shall be on the - >> thank you very much. the author is supervisor kim. thank you chair wiener i want to make sure that the introduce comments here today, you know, today we're talking about pedestrian safety is important. the closer of shaw alley was part of the center district plan
3:27 am
and shaw valley represents a entity for the transit center to market mission and which of our market buildings it is in keeping with the downtown transit hub centered around the new terminal the scombrd idea with shaw alley is to connect the cities cultural and retail designations in the areas it's a new office within mission street win first and second. the developer has genocide to develop the plazas and this ordinance allows for the ordinance of the gift to the city it creates a spatial part
3:28 am
of the city and it has the futile it and smallest park we have dpw here to introduce and this is for the fees $16,080 a month i know there's a few memos in the document we're allowing a waiver order to january 15th is when the construction of the plaza coincides also with the construction of the building as well i know we have dpw >> good afternoon john with the department of public works this is being proposed by developers this was wart part of the
3:29 am
conditions of the entitle they'll be closing shaw alley a vertigo traffic for the mall. they'll be installing improvements along the street and will be seeking to give back to the city. the developer boston properties will maintain those facilities has part of the gift. as stated this would be they're seeking a fee waiver until their complete with the project which is projected several years from today. there are currently no additional comments that the department can add as previously stated if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you just to clarify i think you meant several months. >> it's been ongoing for
3:30 am
several years. >> but the plazas is projected to be completed in december or january. >> that's correct. >> we're awaiting those fees during the six or seven months. >> that will be the call of the board for the fee waivers. >> is this something we've done before when there's been rehabilitation work of the public realm and by a developer or private entity? we would wave the fees. >> there's been various requests inform the board and it was left as a policy of the board to determine. >> where they what happened to that. >> in some cases a fee waiver was provide. >> okay. thank you. >> o